Are You Using 802.1X? 239
"Here's our story: we're using Windows 2003 servers (for IAS) and PEAP/MSCHAPv2. We're not offering support for Windows clients prior to 2000 (even though clients do exist for 98/ME,etc). Windows 2000 supposedly has builtin support after SP3, but on June 10, Microsoft released a WEP patch that breaks 1x! (At least for our implementation...) Windows XP SP1 works in most cases, but certain onboard-wireless chipsets (Intel) don't work, regardless of OS. I heard that staff struggled with and finally successfully installed a 3rd party client for RedHat 9, and I'm told there's also a client for Mac OS 10.2.
As far as I can tell, the network guys did their homework--I promise--but this deployment is beginning to look like a disaster! Do you have any wisdom to share about how to pull victory from the clutches of shameful defeat? I realize my question is rather broad and vague ... but I'm really interested to see what discussion comes up. Thanks!"
Answer (Score:4, Funny)
Next question please.
Re:Answer (Score:4, Informative)
-- a fan whore, look at my journal for hot sex [slashdot.org]
Re:Answer (Score:2)
Could you rephrase the question in the form of multiple choice?
Universities and such (Score:3, Insightful)
At the university level you have people using about 300 different configurations and OS's. If seems like you are making if just that more difficult for those users that get use out of the network that they pay for through their tuition.
Re:Universities and such (Score:5, Informative)
Like I said before, there has to be some balance between security and academic freedom, but there must be some sort of security policy in any large wireless network. I think what the industry really needs is a standard rather than 5 or more different solutions with marginal advantages over one another. Then we can work on getting that standard supported everywhere (PEAP I hope). Until then, wireless security will always be hit or miss or none at all.
Re:Universities and such (Score:5, Informative)
Also, not only is there a TLS open source standard... the open1x project (http://www.open1x.org) has a TTLS release, and PEAP in CVS.
PEAP is a horrid ripoff of TTLS in my opinion.
P.S. The FUNK guys wrote the TTLS RFC.
M$ and Cisco wrote the PEAP RFC, but neither of them follow it, or each other.
Re:Universities and such (Score:2)
Anyways, their solution doesn't sound that problematic. i haven't come across a VPN solution supports every platform equally. It's the state of the tech.
Re:Universities and such (Score:2)
In a university the diversity and freedon (WHICH IS GOOD) pervents the standardization that can come from what would be an easy fix in a biz setting.
The openness and freedom of access at the university level demands that more creative solutions be discovered, rather then just going for a fix that only works on WinXP and
Re:Universities and such (Score:3, Informative)
We are supporting Mac OS X users.
We are supporting Windows users.
We don't support Linux, but we are writing the client.
We have gone out of our way to make this work as best possible for our students, and we would rather them be secure than have them using an unsecure wireless network.
Take a look at our list of supported cards before you start badmouthing our efforts:
http://www.laptop.lib.utah.edu/
Uhm, YES (Score:1, Informative)
But yes, we use it, have been for quite some time - about November of last year - works great, and is pretty good - requires RADIUS or Active Directory/IAS.
Get SP4 for W2K (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Get SP4 for W2K (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, what's that? Your network card doesn't work? Well, like I said, just get on the LAN and download this pack.
Yes, I know your NIC is non functional. Like I said, just get online and download this service pack...
Re:Get SP4 for W2K (Score:2)
"I'm crazy."
"... But since you know you're crazy, you really must not be crazy. Get back to duty."
(I know it's not exacting
Testing... Testing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Did "homework" include a reasonable test implementation? Anything that affects your infrastructure in such a drastic way should probably be banged on for several weeks with at least a dozen guinea pigs (assuming you don't have a test lab in these days of cost cutting).
Re:Testing... Testing... (Score:5, Funny)
First make sure that this is legal in your state. Richard Gere got into trouble for involving small rodents in his banging sessions.
Purdue's Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Purdue's Solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Purdue's Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
With 802.1x properly implemented, there's little reason to continue using VPN. I have seen a combination of VPN and
Re:Purdue's Solution (Score:1)
Re:Purdue's Solution (Score:2)
Is it? This is an honest question; Ive avoided all 802.* over concerns that WEP is weak encryption, so I dont really know. Please consider the following scenarios:
Or:
Re:Purdue's Solution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Purdue's Solution (Score:3, Informative)
802.1X is NOT derived from LEAP. LEAP is derived from draft 8 of 802.1X (Draft 11 became the standard). And LEAP is also Cisco's proprietary EAP method that runs just fine over standard 802.1X thank you.
For the long haul, LEAP is weak and attackable. I think AKA will be our on secret based EAP method that is safe to use. A secret within a tunnel (PEAP/MSCHAPv2 for example) is open to man in the middle attack
Re:Purdue's Solution (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Cisco VPN client not available on Linux (Score:2)
Another Question... (Score:1)
Re:Another Question... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://open1x.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net]
I'm not only a client, I'm also a developer.
yes, the security it provides is worth it (Score:5, Informative)
There is some support on OSes for 802.1x (Windows XP has it built it for some authentication methods, for Windows 2000 you can download it from the Microsoft website, for Linux and BSD use xsupplicant (http://www.open1x.org).
One important consideration is what 'EAP method' you use for security. 802.1x is a framework for security and you can tie-in different methods within this framework for doing the actual authentication and key generation.
If you use EAP-TLS then there is can be a problem of configuring certificates on client machines, though its pretty secure once setup. You can use the cisco proprietary LEAP with Cisco AP's and clients or go for a solution based on PEAP or EAP-TTLS.
LEAP only requires you to have a user-name/password type of setup and can be easily tied to existing authentication infrastructure (Eg: the windows network in your LAB). PEAP and EAP-TTLS need only a username and password if you use MS-CHAPV2 or some such method, though you still need valid server-side certificates.
Puneet
Re:yes, the security it provides is worth it (Score:2)
make any card work with 1x! (Score:4, Interesting)
A really great client for getting multiple cards to work on 1x networks is the Aegis client from Meetinghouse [mtghouse.com] Their supplicant will take many standard WiFi cards and allow them to use 1x.
Our IT dept doesn't support it (most probably won't) but if you're a frustrated user who doesn't want to buy a new card for a 1x network they've got a 15 day demo which should give you enough time to figure out if it works for you.
Re:make any card work with 1x! (Score:2, Interesting)
To people supporting 802.1x:
If certain vendors aren't supporting 802.1x, don't buy their cards.
If they don't support their card, why should you?
Make a recommendation to your users that they should stay away from certain cards.
802.1x works (Score:4, Informative)
We wanted PEAP since it doesn't require manual certificates.
It took a lot of tweaking on the server, a small bit on the AP, but the client settings were just what you'd expect them to be.
I didn't try it with OS X (even though I used a Powerbook on the job). Take a look at http://www.mtghouse.com/
Per the message boards I've read, their client should work just fine.
For hardware considerations... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:For hardware considerations... (Score:2)
One of the big advantages of going wireless
Re:For hardware considerations... (Score:2)
I'm on a desktop, however, and already have half a dozen other wires tangled up. The selling point for me was not having to drill any holes through my cieling to run cable to the router upstairs.
I guess you learn something every day. (Score:2)
Re:I guess you learn something every day. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I guess you learn something every day. (Score:2, Funny)
So is this 802.1x Hi-Speed or Full-Speed?
Re:I guess you learn something every day. (Score:2, Informative)
802.1x works with 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, and standard wireless networks.
802.1x does not replace wireless, it complements it.
tried it but didnt like it (Score:2, Informative)
IPSec (Score:2)
Re:IPSec (Score:1)
Re:IPSec (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IPSec (Score:2)
Re:IPSec (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IPSec (Score:2, Informative)
802.1x Rolled Out at Baylor University (Score:2, Informative)
No plunge here... (Score:2, Interesting)
*sigh*
not really (Score:1)
We just finished rolling out EAP-TLS on a Win2k... (Score:4, Informative)
For Hardware we used Cisco 1100's and Zyair B1000's (Http://www.zyxel.com). The B1000's have a beta firmware to support EAP-TLS and cost less than $100 bucks!
We only allow Win2k and Windows XP clients to use wireless, setting up the few win98 clients we have is too much of a pain!
With Windows XP Service Pack1 the user will get a prompt that says there is a wireless network available. Included in that is a check box to use 802.1x authentication and since the default is Certificates all the user does is click connect and they are on!
If you have clients other than windows clients you can still use the win2k cert server, just have then download the cert via the web manager. IT will be http://certservername/certsrv. Works great.
Re:We just finished rolling out EAP-TLS on a Win2k (Score:2)
http://www.connect-ms.com/technet/Resources/TNT
It's supposedly what they use on their corporate network (along with smart cards).
Our Technet guy plainly stated that the MS-branded wireless APs don't support 1x. So he whipped out a D-Link AP that does.
question for /. - 802.1x or a firewall (Score:2)
For the FW solution, it is possible to falsify a MAC, but not something your average user would do (though VMWare makes it trivial).
For the 802.1x solution, you have the issues of different cards, drivers, implentations, and then the question of people who wanna run Linux, *BSD, etc... can't just cut them/me off
Re:question for /. - 802.1x or a firewall (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:question for /. - 802.1x or a firewall (Score:1)
http://www.klcconsulting.net/smac/
Couple this with ethereal (where you first sniff
out a valid MAC address) and getting network
access on a MAC based authentication scheme is trivial.
Also, 802.1x will provide you encryption and dynamic keys, something a simple firewall based
solution wont be able to do.
Puneet
Re:question for /. - 802.1x or a firewall (Score:2)
Re:question for /. - 802.1x or a firewall (Score:2)
I suppose that some sort of VPN would be another way - anything that forces the user to authenticate vs trusting that who they were last week (MAC) is the same as this week.
Something to read up on this weekend.
Re:question for /. - 802.1x or a firewall (Score:2)
We provide SSL/TLS access to web/ftp/email for our services. To me, it is up to the end user to make sure they are encrypted when need be.
BUT - if we can get it as a bonus, I'll be glad to have it
Same here (Score:2)
However, we are still researching WLAN solutions for when the decision is made to provide wireless access for the student VLANs.
Ideally an enterprise solution would
* be as transparent as possible to the users
* NOT involve installing a cli
Mac OS 10.2 still struggles (Score:2, Informative)
My impression is that this is a much needed, but still nubile technology. I wouldn't be surprised to see stronger support flourish in the 'alternate' (non-MSFT) OSes within the next year or so. Microsoft seems to be a bit ahead of the game on this one.
No WEP, Yes IPSec. (Score:5, Informative)
It is BROKEN [berkeley.edu].
Use IPSec. There are many tutorials for using IPSec in tunnel mode as a replacement for WEP. Google it [google.com]. I wrote the 3rd or 4th one down - it isn't that hard, guys. Please don't use WEP, it really isn't smart.
Re:No WEP, Yes IPSec. (Score:2)
Re:No WEP, Yes IPSec. (Score:5, Informative)
1) It doesn't work on many platforms such as pre OS X 10.2, pre Win2k, or many "stock" Linux installs. (Linux requires a kernel patch, though this will change with kernel 2.6)
2) It is difficult for users to configure. There's no GUI in OS X to configure it, and setting it up in Windows involves installing some extra stuff from MS to make it work.
3) Implementation compatbility? I don't know how much of this is still an issue, but I imagine that it comes up...
4) Ethernet layer security. There's still no security that would prevent people from having access to the ethernet layer. The point of WEP was to prevent people without the key from joining the network. Controlling access to the ethernet layer is important for security because anyone with access (Which would be the case with WEP turned off) can still do nasty things like flood the network with broadcast traffic, send unsolicited arp replies to the router to DoS different machines, etc...
in short, IPSec requires too much configuration on the client end. Unless you can put together a nifty script for each platform that needs to use the network, it will be too difficult for most users to configure.
Re:No WEP, Yes IPSec. (Score:2)
Really, and you do have ethernet security on your fixed network ?
Re:No WEP, Yes IPSec. (Score:2, Interesting)
The main flaw with VPN based wireless security is that you are only protecting and securing the nodes inside the wired network. It's trivially easy to get an IP address on your wireless network (either no security or "mac" ha! security) and you have to have an IP address before you can make a VPN connection. I hope you have your PC locked down in a very secure manner because you cannot stop people from trying to hack at
Re:No WEP, Yes IPSec. (Score:2)
Tt's usually damn easy to get into a building by social engineering ...
Do you know that, in the IPsec (VPN) specifications and in the solution we are using, there's the possibility of having the gateway to require the client to configure itself as to deny all other incoming connections ?
Re:No WEP, Yes IPSec. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No WEP, Yes IPSec. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the smart thing to do is to use both.
"You use WEP?!"
Well duh, that keeps unautorized users off your network. Yeah it's crackable, but IPSec does nothing for lower-layer security. IPSec was designed for a different purpose than WEP If you want a secure network, use both.
Re:No WEP, Yes IPSec. (Score:2)
Well duh, that keeps unautorized users off your network. Yeah it's crackable, but IPSec does nothing for lower-layer security. IPSec was designed for a different purpose than WEP If you want a secure network, use both.
I've noticed lately that some wireless cards and access points are starting to come out with support for AES encryption. I understand that this basically just substitutes a better encryption algorithm (AES rather than RC4) as the default packet encryption. It should do the
This isnt new (Score:2, Informative)
Solution: Drop Encryptions for a short time... (Score:1)
802.1x is very secure here-no one is able to login (Score:4, Funny)
way we reached the highest possible level of security - nobody, even the authorized personel can not log-in. This means that users have complete
protection from hackers, viruses and similar.
Re:802.1x is very secure here-no one is able to lo (Score:2)
This is an example of the axiom that there is always a tradeoff between usability and security. In this case, the security is almost infinite, thus the usability is (necessarily) roughly zero.
University of Utah - 802.1x Campus Standard (Score:5, Informative)
I work at the University of Utah. We're currently rolling out 802.1x.
My building has already rolled out 802.1x on about 36 access points. We've been running for over a month and a half.
We've got a lot of people interested in what we're doing. We're using a decentralized model that allows us to let various departments use their user accounts everywhere else on campus (that is using 802.1x).
Check out our whitepaper for more information:
http://utahgeeks.sourceforge.net/projects/Wireles
The paper covers various issues. Keep in mind that the paper is not quite done yet, but it does have a lot of useful information.
We're officially supporting Mac OS X, Windows 98, Windows 2k, and Windows XP. We're not officially supporting Linux, but my boss and I are lead developers on the open1x project (http://open1x.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net]).
It has Linux and Mac OS X support. We support TTLS, TLS, PEAP (in CVS), MD5, and we're going to be implementing EAP_AKA pretty soon.
If you're interested in the specifics please check out some of our support pages:
http://www.laptop.lib.utah.edu/global/support/ind
The biggest problem has been support for various cards on Windows. The support link above lists the cards we've tested.
We're currently only supporting Airport on Mac OS X due to the lack of a public API from Apple. (Please let apple know that you want a public wireless API so we can support more cards...
We're using a campus site license of the Meetinghouse supplicant for Mac OS X, and Windows. We're using Radiator, a perl based (VERY NICE!) radius server. It's 802.1x implementation rocks.
More info on Radiator: http://www.open.com.au [open.com.au]
802.1x is becoming the University of Utah campus standard. All future wireless purchases made with student task force moneys will be required to be 802.1x compatible.
Please let us know if you have any questions regarding our setup.
Re:University of Utah - 802.1x Campus Standard (Score:2)
A google search failed to find any information on any ongoing TKIP/WPA work for Linux...
-roy
Re:University of Utah - 802.1x Campus Standard (Score:2)
Interesting, thanks. Do you have any pointers to more info about this? I looked on the open1x site and in the READMEs that come with xsupplicant, but I couldn't find much.
Thanks,
-roy
Re:University of Utah - 802.1x Campus Standard (Score:2)
I'll have a look at the list archives....
Many thanks,
-roy
Re:University of Utah - 802.1x Campus Standard (Score:2)
Incidentally, the Radiator web site has a useful list of APs that support 802.1x, which may be worth referencing somewhere...
-roy
Should I be using 802.1x? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm running a public WI-FI access point and I've had several people tell me that I should look into one of these encryption methods. Personally, I don't get it. If you're using WI-FI for your internal network then I understand, smb passwords flying around, people dropping into your NFS system, but for simple, public internet access does it really matter?
It seems to me that this type of encryption may not even belong at the connection level. Any type of encryption is going to add significant overhead so shouldn't be up to the application to use make secure connections as needed? For most web browsing, who cares if the signal is intercepted, if you're sending passwords or credit info you should be using https anyway. Likewise IMAP, POP3, FTP and SMTP, use the SSL wrapped alternatives.
Is there something I'm missing here? Shouldn't it generally be up to the app to determine if the overhead of encryption is required.
Re:Should I be using 802.1x? (Score:5, Informative)
a) 802.1x was designed for port based access, not wireless. It was adapted for wireless. The keying method is WEP. The encryption tunnel for authentication happens VERY quickly. very little overhead.
b) 802.1x allows you to know WHO is on your network. Do you really want to have an open wide public network that some terrorist could potentially get on to talk to his buddies anonymously... not me...
c) Once again... the encryption for the authentication happens very quickly. We're talking miniscule amounts of time. The keying on the card is WEP, but the keys can be per-user, and can rotate at a specified interval. If you're using WEP at all your keys should be rotating no less than every 10 minutes, otherwise it would be very easy to crack.
d) 802.1x *IS* using SSL for its encryption... besides the fact that that portion only happens for authentication... as I said before WEP is used on the cards.
802.11i will provide per-packet keying, which is when you should really start to worry about the overhead...
Northwestern University Setup (Score:4, Informative)
WEP is not used to secure the network. Instead they're using VPN to provide authentication as well as secure/encrypted connections. Nothing beyond the VPN server and other clients of the AP are accessible without connecting to VPN. As an added benefit VPN allows off-campus users to use the NU mail relays, and other things that are restricted the university subnets.
Check it out:
http://www.tss.northwestern.edu/wireless/ [northwestern.edu]
http://www.tss.northwestern.edu/vpn/ [northwestern.edu]
802.1x support in MacOS 10.3 (panther)? (Score:2)
Thanks.
I use 802.x (Score:2)
Plenty of experience (Score:2, Informative)
I have had plenty of experience with 802.1x installed at a major american university (which may be the same university the article submitter works at).
Thanks to the 802.1x deployment, I have zero wireless networking capability under FreeBSD. Ah, that takes me back to my freshmen year of 1996.
What's the best solution for non-tech home users? (Score:2)
But what's the best option for people who don't want to run a windows server, or a unix box, or any flavor of radius? Are there any consumer priced access points that support reasonably secure wireless networking, without an expensive server on the back end?
Most of what I'm seeing here says that you either have to run a unix-like OS, w2k, or xp (ie., not win 9x) on the client, that you need the professional version of xp,
Re:What's the best solution for non-tech home user (Score:2)
Re:What's the best solution for non-tech home user (Score:2)
MSFT campus/subs use 802.1x (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a good piece [nwfusion.com] in the June NetworkWorldFusion talking about MSFT, Cisco and few other large installations.
Yippee... hooray... hooray... (Score:3, Informative)
Protect the upper layers not below 3
Hack layer two... yippee! yippee!
Since WEP 40/128 provide NO security at the high layer... people feel they're getting something
with WPA (most won't run the required auth/radius server though.. so it's even worse).
Layer 2 is still open. You'll have to wait until next year when the 11i crew comes out with something.
As for a resource, use Dr. Arbaugh's new book on the subject.
http://www.amasin.com/-/0321136209/Real
Use a wireless gateway (Score:3, Interesting)
802.11x is little more than Cisco's LEAP technology that has been turned into an industry standard.
Trying to secure a network at layer two is extremely dificult. You're not dealing with enough intelligence and flexibility. Taking it up another layer to layer three (network layer) gives you much greater flexability.
You need to look into the wireless gateway technologies [reefedge.com]. Its easiest to think of these as being a firewall and VPN concentrator combined into one box.
Just as an internet firewall is designed to secure internal corporate networks from external internet communications, the wireless gateway once again segments your network with wired and wireless.
Encryption takes place at layer 3 using IPSec when required. Using a wireless gateway, you can have a guest user log into your network as a guest, and the gateway will allow them to access the internet, and only the internet -- and you can throttle their bandwidth down to 56kbps or whatever you'd like. However, if I were to login to the network as an internal user, the gateway would build a 3DES IPSec tunnel out to my PC before it would allow me to access ANY internal network resources.
It allows you the flexibility to give different users various levels of security based upon their login. The best part is that it does not require a client to be loaded on any end user device, and because it operates at layer 3, it is layer 2 agnostic - meaning it doesn't matter what kind of Access Point or radio card you're using.
I've deployed these solutions in hospitals, universities, even classified government facilities. (WEP is not FIPS certified, 3DES is)
Are You Using 802.1X? (Score:2)
Architecture is the key in securing WLAN (Score:2, Interesting)
802.1X, TKIP, WPA and so on are all nice methods to control WLAN access, but even they cannot correct a louzy WLAN architecture.
The problem is that in several, even most places, people are connecting their access points directly to their intranet and then rely only on the WEP key, MAC address lists, 802.1X and the WiFi security standard of your choice. In this kind of architecture when a standard is broken or the access point is compromised or just mis-configured, the attacker is able to gain access ins
802.1x Has Been Cracked (Score:2)
Forget 802.1x. It was cracked over a year ago. Here's an article [shmoo.com] reporting on the vulnerability. WEP (any bit length) is even worse; cracks have been out for it for ages.
Your best bet is to deploy IPSec. Yes, as an earlier poster points out, there are some vulnerabilities that IPSec doesn't address, but if you build your network properly (keep all APs on a spur in the DMZ; make sure the spur router(s) refuse all hostile Ethernet frames), you can mitigate or eliminate those problems.
Schwab
Re:802.1x Has Been Cracked (Score:5, Informative)
No (Score:2)
Southern Polytechnic's Solution (Score:3, Informative)
We are running Funk Software's Steel Belted RADIUS (SBR) on Solaris for 1x authentication requests using TTLS. SBR verifies user credentials on the back end against our OpenLDAP server. We also return the group membership of the validated user with each login so the RAS can implement individual firewalls (at the user's point of access!) based on each users' credentials (aka User Personalized Networking). This is essential for supporting large numbers of open-access ports (i.e. dorms, Library, Student Center, labs...)
We use Enterasys equipment exclusively, including their R2 access points for wireless. We use their Netsight Atlas Policy Manager software to enforce UPN policies.
We have an academic site license for the Meeting House Aegis 1x client. This has worked brilliantly with 2000/XP and MacOS. Linux support has been shaky (it's beta) but we have had success with Open1x in that application. The problem with the Mac is that it doesn't come preconfigured with any certificate authorities under OpenSSL, so we have had to add one manually to each station.
The only problems we have had is a small bug in SBR that caused it to periodically lose contact with LDAP (fixed in SBR 4.0.4) and some quirky early versions of the Aegis clients (fixed). Meeting House has also just released (beta) an enterprise-deployment option that allows us to distribute a preconfigured client. Funk's client is worth looking at also, but it is very pricey.
My sugestions: plan well, test a LOT, and stay the HECK away from any of the MS garbage -- your life will be MUCH simpler!
Why not IPsec? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's more standardized, it's available on more clients, and if you have a large number of connections through hosts you can use crypto accelerator boards on your routers (running BSD or Linux).
The main issue would be distributing public-key certificates. This could be automated though: have a web page where the netops staff fill in fields for the user infromation (including a valid email address), generate the certificate witha Perl script/CGI and enter all the information in a d
802.1x not a wireless protocol (Score:2)
(and, for those who are curious, there are many, many applications -- if you can't think of any, you don't have meeting rooms with network points in your workplace...
FreeRadius+xsupplicant+Orinoco AP500 = no workee (Score:2)
About six months ago I tried top get 802.1x to work with FreeRadius [freeradius.org] and Xsupplicant [sourceforge.net] using and Orinoco Ap500 and and Orinico Gold PCMCIA card under Linux. I couldn't get it to work, though I think it was due to misconfiguation of the Ap500. No attempt to contact the RADIUS server was ever made.
I gave up and went with IPsec, which worked for my needs.
Re:Our story (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:802.1x vs. WPA (Score:2, Informative)
WPA is an "early release" snapshot of 802.11i. It requires the 802.1X access control mechanisms and a souped-up version of 802.1X key management. Whether WPA requires EAP-based (RADIUS-based) authentication or a manually-entered key depends on how you configure it.